There seem to be an awful lot of BBC employees on Twitter this morning listing all

[Burney]

I'm not particularly fussed, but I can see the argument that, given that I have no right to opt out of paying towards Gary Lineker's salary, I have a right to know what he earns.

Of course, the only upshot of this will be that female stars will have their salaries increased to achieve parity with the male stars and we the licence fee payers will be no better off.

[Monty92]

I agree that's rather arbitrary, but they are - we must assume - the best paid people in the organisation.

Also, it's not an argument against their salaries being revealed, it's an argument in favour of everyone in the BBC's salary being revealed.

But their salaries could be revealed unanimously and we would still know everything we need to know.

This is simply a case of trying to shame high earners and is something I'd have thought you would ordinarily oppose.

[Sir C]

Of course, the only upshot of this will be that female stars will have their salaries increased to achieve parity with the male stars and we the licence fee payers will be no better off.

Oh God, someone's going to find a person of colour being paid less than someone else in a minute

I'm shocked to see that Andrew Neill is only on £200k. He's the only decent journalist left in the place.

[Burney]

Oh God, someone's going to find a person of colour being paid less than someone else in a minute

I'm shocked to see that Andrew Neill is only on £200k. He's the only decent journalist left in the place.

Yeah, but he gets graveyard slots.

[Burney]

But their salaries could be revealed unanimously and we would still know everything we need to know.

This is simply a case of trying to shame high earners and is something I'd have thought you would ordinarily oppose.

It's not shaming, it's allowing the public to see and assess how their money is being spent. I would argue that a publicly-funded institution has no business keeping this sort of information private.

[Monty92]

It's not shaming, it's allowing the public to see and assess how their money is being spent. I would argue that a publicly-funded institution has no business keeping this sort of information private.

BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE KEPT PRIVATE

[IUFG]

I'm not particularly fussed, but I can see the argument that, given that I have no right to opt out of paying towards Gary Lineker's salary, I have a right to know what he earns.

Rise up, sc.

Troll the self-****ting ****er on Twitter.

I know I will...

[Sir C]

BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE KEPT PRIVATE

If you shout at my friend again I'll put one on you.

[Burney]

BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE KEEP PRIVATE

But anonymous revelations would simply mean that the public aren't able to know how their money is being spent. We would simply know that it is being spent, but not how. For instance, we now know that Nick Knowles (?) is paid 50-150K more than the BBC's political editor. That is bizarre, spendthrift and is something we simply wouldn't know if these revelations were anonymous.

[Monty92]

But anonymous revelations would simply mean that the public aren't able to know how their money is being spent. We would simply know that it is being spent, but not how. For instance, we now know that Nick Knowles (?) is paid 50-150K more than the BBC's political editor. That is bizarre, spendthrift and is something we simply wouldn't know if these revelations were anonymous.

No, the salaries could be revealed in a way that exposed such discrepancies with full transparency while remaining anonymous.